Why were con artists allowed to parade all willy-nilly with their

>>2837015
Modern art is a meme used to swindle rich people out of their money by savvy (((art dealers))).

>>2837042
This is actually literally and unironically true.

Research how the art BUSINESS works on speculation and profit.

>>2837015
>rothko
Didn't like him. I like Malevich though.

>>2837015
CIA promoted this art to fight Soviets in the culture war.

>>2837015
Funded by the CIA to show that the West was more "free" in contrast to the overtly state-sponsored Soviet Realism.

File: file.png (1MB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x800px

>>2837209
That being said, the Rothko Chapel is pretty neat and Rothko is pleasing in the same way as a heavily photoshopped space desktop background from the mid 2000's. Bold but meaningless visuals elicit an immediate feeling from the viewer, assuming they draw an emotional response from color-memory.

>>2837042
Not quite since the rich have a lot to gain from putting their assets into art. It's more like an elaborate money laundering/tax-evasion scheme for the ultra-rich.

>>2837217

More info on this?

>>2837015
>Art is just pictures of things

I'm not going to tell you whats good or bad but art is supposed to make you feel and think. If something does neither of those things for you, find some other art that does.

Painting has become more and more abstract because realism was more or less killed at its peak by photography. If you're looking for human scenes or landscapes, look to photography.

Art isn't entirely a supply and demand thing. Van Gogh was pretty unpopular in his lifetime but became so later because his style had a vibrancy that stood out in the early 20th century. Artists create what they will and the public picks up whatever resonates with them.

Sometimes, yes, the public is trying to look smart. They let critics pick and choose whats "best" for them. This isn't all bad - curation prevents a "reddit" approach to art.

It's sterotypical but I used to think Jackson Pollock's work was garbage. I've since seen pieces by him that strongly evoke certain scenes just through carefully chosen colors. They put me in a memory of a time and place the same way a certain smell might transport you back.

Anyway, art is subjective. As you knew when you posted.

>>2837292
>curation prevents a "reddit" approach to art.
Curation is an entirely reddit approach to art. Critic consensus divides the "kitsch" from the high-brow. They get their upvotes from money and academic praise.

>>2837292
>art is supposed to make you feel and think
An empty canvas, menstrual blood painting and a urinal really make me ponder about the deeper meanings of the universe.

Modern art is a bastard child of Marxist deconstructivism.
Daily reminder that we must rebell & exterminate them all.

>>2837326

Like I said, artists make what they will. No one is forcing you to try and "get" dadaism. That whole style is meant not to make sense anyway. It's literally meta. If it doesn't mean anything to you, then look at something else.

>>2837292
>art is supposed to make you feel and think
Ehhhh, not quite.

Art is about what you want. Art is about the ideal. The abstract and minimalist modernist works still followed that rule, but the thing is, the people supporting that shit were all vapid, self-absorbed and boring. And so what they wanted indeed translated into their works. Their works were more concerned about "perspectivism" and appearing "subtle" (which roughly meant, shallow but make it seem like there's more to it) and having a "message".

Caveman sees a wild beast he wants to kill or fuck - hence he imagines the desire, the ideal, and draws a picture of himself killing or fucking a wild beast. There's a message in that, sure, but when the caveman smeared his concoction of feces and blood paste on the wall to draw these things, the message was not the focus - his boner was.

Artists have followed this simple principle since day one. It has always been about what you want, the intangible ideal that you want brought to life. And it's fine to like those abstract or minimalist works if you agree with what those artists wanted. I see it as a mockery for irony's sake though.

File: wat.jpg (137KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1600x900px

>>2837015
Speaking from my own experience as a professional artist, "modern art" is hated by a lot of people in the art community as well. While art is, of course subjective, it's a bit disheartening to put time and effort into learning form, anatomy, lighting, etc and then seeing pic related sell for 110 million dollars. Still, I wonder what kind of devil's deal you have to make to sell something like that for that kind of money.
If you want to see some recent work by technically talented artists, go pick up a copy of the yearly Spectrum. It's full of great stuff that isn't up its own ass with meaning and deepness.

File: jazz wave.jpg (75KB, 640x610px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x610px

>>2837389

I don't know if I agree with all of that. Political art is very much a thing and it often depicts the opposite of an ideal. It's not like food necessarily, where everything is made to taste good. Sometimes you draw things you hate and that's natural too. It can even resonate with others.

All I know is I'm only really dissatisfied if I look at a piece and go "eh". I feel that way about OPs Rothkos and some other pieces of really abstract art but I'm not about to say those don't have value to somebody or shouldn't have been popular.

>>2837015
Money laundering. It's all literally a huge scam.

File: susanboyle.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>>2837399

feel like basquiats success is a little racist... like he's obviously shit. can't paint. retarded drug addict. and then all of these white colletors were like wow! this little street monkey can paint! isnt that cute?

he's literally just another talentless black homeless painter. A white guy with an MFA (back then) would never have gotten away with this shit. pic related.

I think its called the bigotry of low expectations.

>>2837292
>art is subjective

no, it's not.

>>2837558
>MFA
What's an MFA?

>>2837399
>Spectrum
Interesting, thank you.

>>2837399
Raw draftsmanship is just not taught or valued anymore.

>>2837292
>>2837399
This guy gets it.

>>2837015
Why do autistics that only like epic broads and barbarians fantasy shit think that anybody that likes anything remotely abstract is only pretending?

>>2837015
must be admitted this crap may look cool as part of interior design. but it should not cost more than 5 or 10 dollars. astronomic prices are boosted by art ethnic dealer mafia who keep reselling some POS until it 'earns history' and then may be sold for millions to some bank (usually colluding with said bank ethnic management to the detriment of cuck shareholders).

>>2838219

Gangster Computer God Worldwide Secret Containment Policy made possible solely by Worldwide Computer God Frankenstein Controls. Especially lifelong constant-threshold Brainwash Radio. Quiet and motionless, I can slightly hear it. Repeatedly this has saved my life on the streets.

>>2837015
It was literally the most advanced painting at the time because it dealt exclusively with its own materials.

>>2837209
The art business you know and love was born in the 80s when corporations got involved with art.

>>2837399
Even the art world asks itself "how do we fix the art world?"

Basquiat isn't bad.

>>2837558
>A white guy with an MFA (back then) would never have gotten away with this shit.

Untrue, Neo-expressionism was pretty big. A woman wouldn't have got away with it though.

>>2837857
This is both true and untrue. Art adheres to standards which are objective but often it tries to argue itself around the 'law' of art so that objectivity is never really fixed and entirely context-dependent.

>>2838176
This is actually the saddest thing about these reactionaries, they all like the same 19th century shit instead of any earlier art because it's the most accessible -- so it could be sold to the middle-class.

>>2838284
It's easier to just say that what kind of art you personally like is subjective, but art itself isn't subjective. It's literally just a category error.

>>2838267
Painting was dying at the time so it being the most advanced isn't really saying much.

>>2838957
It was only dying because it was being supplanted by minimalist sculpture, photography, Pop Art, assemblage and all that, i.e. everything else except painting.

>>2838176
I completely agree though I don't really see why abstract art needs to be in galleries. I've always thought they could look nice in someones living room, an object that doesn't demand attention and could compliment the colour scheme/design of the room.

>>2838176
It's not about that. It's more just a questioning of why you want to stare at and dream about some color blotches all day.

We know why though. You like to pretend you're clever.

>>2837015
Because there was demand for their products, what's hard to understand?

>>2838176
They mistook art for craft

>>2840108
Art is expression that is revered. Craft can be art.

>>2838230
Art should make you LOOK AT THE PICTURE and SEE, THE SKULL.

>>2837015
Rothko was directly influenced by a deep understanding of Nietzsche you FUCKING pleb

>>2837326
It is almost as if the empty canvas, menstural blood painting and a urinal are making you consider more seriously the boundaries of art, and whether or not they can, or are fit, to present fuel for the greater project of aesthetics, ontology and value.

>>2839226
Because they're of historical and aesthetic importance.

>>2839531
It's paint on a canvas, like all paintings. What's so hard to understand?

>>2841358
Craft isn't expression.

>>2837292
van gogh became popular because of his connection to gaughin and his brother and sister posthumously shilling his art.. there has been and will always be thousands of mentally ill artists, some die in a ditch and some get fetishized, How many tumblr girls have a daniel johnston t shirt..

>>2841766
So people were manipulated into liking his art by shills rather than it having value as post-Impressionism?

>>2841714
craft can't be expressive? nobody ever crafted something to express themselves?

>>2841783
Have you ever seen an expressive chair?

File: the_expressive_chair.jpg (205KB, 1600x3477px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1600x3477px

>>2841790

Why, yes. Yes, as a matter of fact, I have.

>>2841805
This wouldn't be art even if it were revered. It would just be a revered chair.

>>2841810
are you kidding me? people like you sicken me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorative_arts

the whole point is to revere the artist, not the piece. the art is just a medium, like music and literature.

>>2841839
You should probably read the article you linked to see the distinction between big-A Art and the decorative arts.

File: le_uncomfortable_art_chair.jpg (37KB, 600x747px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x747px

>>2841810

Good job not negating what I just told you, and just doubling down on your own wrong assertion.

There's nothing stopping chairs from being art-objects as well, all at once. You seem to think that you are making a point by taking a normally "prosaic" thing, a chair, and developing the ridiculous, reductionist idea that a chair is at all times and most of all /only/ a chair. This is false. "The category is commonly understood to be prosaic, so everything belonging to the category is necessarily and ONLY also prosaic". This is you.

>>2841861
De Stijl is art first before craft. It's the sole exception because it dealt with relevant artistic concerns. It's not made for the gallery, it ends up in the gallery because of the artistic context of modernism.

File: Old-Time-Whittling-Book.jpg (108KB, 500x645px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x645px

>>2841854
are you saying that fine art is the only art because lol. you are either a commie and ill call you bourgeois or your a fascist and ill call you a yakee carpetbagger turdball. art doesnt have to come from rich people that got put through college by their parents.

>>2841898
I'm saying that in art history there is a useful distinction between the fine arts and the decorative arts, with the fine arts historically defining the essence of what 'art' is. The craft/art distinction originally brought up by some other anon is saying that the 19th century works about epic broads or whatever tends to shift away from that which has historically been considered 'art' and more towards a paint-by-numbers craft, because it lacks that quality that separates decoration from some higher purpose claimed for the fine arts.

>>2841874
>art is that which is relevant to the concerns of the institution
Pure, unadulterated cancer.

>>2837399
hey im a professional artist too

you in LA?

>>2837015

1. Because they are premier money laundering vehicles.
>What do you mean?

Millions of dollars can be stored as the value of an innocuous painting.

2. The CIA funneled money into promoting it as a rival school of art to Soviet Realism.

>>2842533
CONT.

>What do you mean (regarding painting)

And the cost of funding academics making word salad about pieces is minimal in comparison to the capital value stored on the canvas.

>>2838272
I disagree, art dealers were jewing rich dudes back when we receded to monopolists as robber barons.

>>2838323
Oh wow look this anon just solved the problem of art. Everyone go home, anon you are a genius.

>>2841358
I agree. Beautiful craftsmanship where you can feel the love and inspiration poured into pure technique is for me definitely art. It almost becomes performance art in a weird way. That said, I also dig very abstract art.

>it's all just a money laundering scam!!

People keep saying this, yet offer no proof.

File: 1491572921761.jpg (270KB, 750x728px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 750x728px

>you don't like modern art because you don't understand it

>>2842935

The proof is that the variable nature of the value of paintings is such a delectable exploit in income valuation.

Once you have a painting, you can file it as being worth anything from a fraction of a penny to a billion dollars on tax forms.

And a bunch of schmuck academics will write garbage and salad to justify the appreciating "actual" value of the painting.

>>2842978

Do you have examples of that happening?

>>2842985

The uselessness of art in a world where tesosterone levels are dropping due to xenoestrogens, where men have to compete with women for jobs which destroys them both, and where first world nations are heavily invested in polluting the largest stream of information in history (the internet).

The artists with talent get to work in either advertising or entertainment.

>>2843015

>But that's not proof

You have to be insane to walk into a modern art museum and think that any of the pieces "speak" to you or inspire a feeling of the sublime and beauty.

Their utility is propping up a system of de facto cognitive pollution by creating a class of academics to pump up the value of paintings.

>>2842143
Literally the whole truth of art. Art is nothing without its qualifying frame.

>>2842545
Sadly the writing in support of this art makes more sense than the writing against it.

>>2842609
In terms of speculation though, that began in the 80s. People buying modernist art genuinely believed it was the most advanced art, not because they thought it would fetch a few dollars a decade down the track.

>>2843018
You'd have to be insane to believe sublimity and beauty is the purpose of art. This isn't the Romantic period.

>>2842978
I wonder how conceptual art and art that specifically avoids commodification and the art market works into this scam. Oh it fucking doesn't?

>>2843087

Because what else is the purpose of art? As I said, >>2843015

why the fuck should I give a single shit about modern art? How does it give comfort to man? Why should man constantly be faced with chaos and meaninglessness?

>>2843092

Describe conceptual art and why it's even important enough to acknowledge in a savage world.

>>2843100

Why should man constantly be faced with chaos and meaninglessness because some academic wrote word salad to pump up the importance of the pieces presented?*

>>2843100
Modern art is the complete opposite of chaos and meaninglessness. It's about uncovering transcendental and spiritual truths about reality as uncovered by the human intellect and imagination. It's a fucking painting on a wall, how chaotic can it be?

>Describe conceptual art

It's art... that's a concept. You can't buy or sell it.

> in a savage world.

Word salad.

>>2843112
Artists tend to write their own statements. They don't need academics to write anything for them. Academics occur after the fact and the importance is self-evident.

>>2843117
>It's art... that's a concept. You can't buy or sell it.

What? Is this some fucking kind of joke? We have terms for that shit that don't involve word salad.

"Imagination"

Wow, so they had to create another fucking edifice of verbal shit to frame imaginative thoughts.

You guys are fucking killing me.

>>2843121

But academics provide "intellectual" justification as writers, curators, and professors. Who indoctrinate people into accepting word salad as meaningful descriptions. Especially when the artist is dead.

>>2843122
What exactly about the word salad do you not understand? If you're having trouble maybe I can help explain it to you.

>>2843123
Artists provide their own justification.

I'm stopping for tonight. This isn't worth even thinking about. This has literally been a waste of cognitive resources.. Literally.

Do you think conceptual art would provide "transcedental" and "spiritual truths" to NKs in a prison camp? Or would they be more moved and healed by being free and taking a break in a forest?

>>2843128

No they don't. Each person who encounters an artist's work either approves or disapproves. The artist is not the sole cognitive entity in the world.

But really, I have to stop.

>>2843136
No conceptual art is not the same 'modern art' that is supposed to provide transcendental and spiritual truths. Conceptual art helps map the functions of the very systems we participate in every day. Conceptual art occurs after the heyday of modern art since they (and other 'post-modernists') believed that modern art ended with the art object being reduced to a commodity in the gallery system -- the same thing you're complaining about. Except this was relevant 50 years ago.

>No they don't.

Yes they do. They write about what they try to accomplish and why. They provide the justification. Whether it is justified to the viewer is another thing entirely. It's the same of the academics; their justification isn't necessary to whether the viewer approves or disapproves. What a useless argument you're making.

It seems this discussion is happening on a couple of levels more advanced than what you're used to. Honestly it's just as well you're calling it quits.

>>2843072

>>2843122
You seem to have a lot of anger towards this topic. Why anger?

>>2843146
>It seems this discussion is happening on a couple of levels more advanced than what you're used to.

I'm sorry. I helped run nuclear reactors on US Navy nuclear submarines. I guess this shit is "too advanced" for a fucking retard like myself. I guess I should've been smart enough to automatically envision a piece of conceptual art but I guess I'm a fucking retard.

>>2843153

Because it's a lot easier to posture intelligence and meaning than to provide actual intelligence and meaning, especially when examining the signals and seeing they don't actually describe anything meaningful.

People would rather talk bullshit instead of solve real problems. That's my experience in life. And even worse, the people who talk bullshit evaluate themselves as being "more advanced" than normal people who have to deal with the real complexity of a world.

>>2843154
>I helped run nuclear reactors on US Navy nuclear submarines

Wait they have nuclear reactors on nuclear submarines now?

>>2843168

Ha ha yes they do. Most other countries don't and the navy only got them because we have stricter safety standards than nuclear power plants.

>>2843162
What you're describing ("modern art is meaningless!") has been a common feeling in the art world since the late 60s. Did it ever occur to you why people don't make abstract art anymore? When do you think Rothko was alive? Did you even know he's dead?

>>2843175

No, because why should I fucking care? I'd rather be a hermit in a mountain than deal with verbal diarrhea

The smell of hay is worth more than all the museums in the world. The sun rising is worth more than all the paintings in the world.

>>2843154
How is that ever related?
t. Wrote code for Russian guided missiles

You are required to have knowledge of the context, not just being 'smart'

>>2843180
Well you share the same feeling towards the art world as the conceptualists, the minimalists, the Nouveaux Realistes, etc. that all modernism's posturing wasn't adequate enough to deal with the real world.

So these artists started to critique the gallery and the systems they belonged to. They started to deflect the idea of 'conscious purpose' because it was a potentially dangerous imposition on the natural world. The sublime, the beautiful, the transcendent, the imaginary, were all meaningless when it came to dealing with real life and real people.

>>2843087
>>2843100
The purpose of art is beauty i.e. pleasure. There is no art movement that contradicts this regardless of what its proponents may try and lead you to believe.

If you disagree, then your conception of beauty is rigid and just based on what the media thinks is beauty. Horror, grotesque imagery can be beauty to some. Abstract shapes and lines can be beauty to some. The thought process that abstract paintings generate from the viewer can be the beauty to some. In some shape or form, there is an appeal to one's sense of beauty, which is being praised in the art itself.

>>2837042
>>2837209
>>2837334
>>2837399
>>2842972
Use the right terminology you fucking philistines. Modern art began in the 1860's, do you hate Van Gogh's work?

>>2843558
How is Throwing Three Balls in the Air to Get a Straight Line (Best of Thirty-Six Attempts) about beauty? You'll have to familiarise yourself with more art movements before you make broad claims about what art is.

>>2843717
How is it not about beauty? I don't give a fuck about it, so I couldn't tell you exactly why it might be seen as attractive, but clearly someone did enough to want it performed, photographed, and eventually framed.

I can tell you right up front that it was not done because they hated doing it, or because they thought it would make for an ugly piece of shit that no one cares about - someone in the process thought it was a worthwhile, attractive effort. Otherwise it's not art.

Expressionist art as a movement is probably on the same level as Beethoven and the Gothic movement, for all the new ideas and styles it gave to art ranging from Bauhus to Futurism to Proto-psychedelia It's influence can be seen everywhere in art and that's a good thing because new ideas prevent stagnation. It's a natural thing because culture changes and goes through evolution like everything else does in the world.

If you can't see the value of a Vincent Van Gogh painting but can see the value of something else that's abstract like some East Asian art just because it's more "traditional" I don't understand. The Goth movement and Beethoven both had the same kind of reaction from people when they were new too.

Art is the application of craft beyond the utilitarian.
Nothing more, nothing less. Any judgement of value is both subjective and memetic, you can call a thing magnificent or trash and even get people to agree with you, but you can not call it "not-art" and expect to be taken seriously, unless you are correct by pointing at something man has no domain over, such as the sun.

>>2844148
Oh yeah art is about beauty only if you equivocate beauty to mean many different things ranging from physical attractiveness to a willingness to perform to create some unfalsifiable mess of an art theory that draws on no actual examples from the history of art, yeah buddy art is about beauty alright.

File: richard williams cant save you now.jpg (2MB, 1752x5426px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1752x5426px

>>2837292
>realism was more or less killed
Yes I love seeing the photographs of Cupid and Psyche, or of David, or anything pre-19th century. My favorite photos are of Eden, Hell, and Biblical imagery.

Realism died because it took too much effort and time to perfect. By the time the post-moderns showed up the dam had burst and any skill in art became viewed with contempt.

>>2844194
Nah, art moved away from craft and the art object in the 60s. It's not about craft. Decoration is utility anyway.

>>2841694
Just like Citizen Kane and scat porno are both on film, like movies. What's so hard to understand?

>>2844239
>Nah, art moved away from craft and the art object in the 60s
Sure, as far as trends go, but that ain't really relevant to what I'm saying.

>It's not about craft
Of course, it's about what can be viewed or gained from the performance or object beyond its materials, purpose or lack thereof.

>Decoration is utility anyway.
Of course, but it's also an art. You can't ever really remove the one from the other.

File: shitdog.jpg (74KB, 500x358px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x358px

>>2844148
>someone in the process thought it was a worthwhile, attractive effort. Otherwise it's not art.
I present to you my masterpiece. It is art by your definition. When you are done marveling at its depth and complexity, here is a video that may give you some perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

>>2844148
Plop
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ad_1398401207

>>2844255
>but that ain't really relevant to what I'm saying.

It is. If an art trend moves away from craft then it isn't accurate to say that art is an application of craft. For a lot of Western art history it has utilised craft as the mechanic for experiencing the 'art' but the mechanics can change while still retaining that ability for the viewer to experience the thing beyond the craft (which is measured by how well it hides itself, becomes invisible).

> it's about what can be viewed or gained from the performance or object beyond its materials, purpose or lack thereof.

Yes this seems to me as a more truthful statement about art.

>>2844247
>>2844266
There should be a new informal fallacy along the lines of appealing to shit. Muh poopies isn't really an argument

File: art modern.jpg (99KB, 508x640px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 508x640px

>>2844284
Explain why shitdog isn't art but paint splatter is

>>2844286
It has already been explained in the thread and all the other threads featuring the subject. If you want to approach art honestly then stop being a shithead know-it-all and do some reading.

File: modernest art.jpg (17KB, 350x237px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 350x237px

>>2844311
>I can't provide evidence for my assertions
>better call him names
Good job. Enjoy your art, such as this brilliant museum piece.

>>2844327
It's in the thread newfag. Do you want me to wipe your ass too?

>>2844327
>I'm afraid of being wrong and I want someone to dominate me intellectually

>>2844230
Beauty: a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.

That includes the mind, idiot. The definition of beauty is not being stretched at all. You're the one twisting its definition by thinking beauty only means a certain thing, namely physical attractiveness.

>>2844266
>It is art by your definition
If you find it praiseworthy and beautiful then it is art to you. Not to me though. I'm not a retard.

Yes, my definition allows for stupid shit like that to happen. It doesn't mean I condone it though. What's also part of my definition is the appraiser. An appraiser is needed for something to be art, and it is art only for those who praise it.

>>2844395
LOL the mind isn't a sense. And abject art isn't about the beauty of the abject.

Art is just another spook.

There is nothing sacred about art, it can all be reduced to psychology and neuroscience.

There is nothing subjective about it either. People have different tastes but we can look at how those tastes were formed. Theoretically you can be brainwashed into considering anything to be deep and meaningful and that's basically what happened, a bunch of pseudointellectual sophists embiggen a piece of modern art and advertise it. That is in fact the point of some works of modern art, to point out the absurdity of celebrity artists, however this concept is getting a little overdone at this point, the urinal is over a century old.

People will always be excited to discover "dude, anything can be art! lmao" and enjoy being told they are smart and edgy for sharing the same tastes as a celebrity, however hopefully we can spread more cynical views around and make it more difficult for artists to impress people so they have to work harder. Then we will get a modern Michelangelo.

>>2844411
>LOL the mind isn't a sense
Have another definition then, if you're going to be technical about it:

>Beauty: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

Regardless of where the beauty is focused, there is praise of a beautiful form present somewhere in the performance / act / process of creation.

>>2837042
>>2837209
Some of this is true

Some of this is not true

Its hard to be sure which artworks are which in this day and age, but you can be sure that almost all of the artists take themselves and their work very seriously even if that may seem absurd.

t. Wife works at a higher-end gallery selling contemporary art

>>2844437
There's just no way you can accurately describe art by relating it to the beautiful.

>Beauty: the quality present in a thing

And for art without an object?

> there is praise of a beautiful form present somewhere in the performance / act / process of creation.

No.

>>2844417
>Then we will get a modern Michelangelo.

Why?

>>2837399
good post

>>2844462
>No.
Then tell me why Throwing Three Balls in the Air to Get a Straight Line (Best of Thirty-Six Attempts) was made, or why someone would want it.

File: 20th century art movements.png (18KB, 1034x145px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1034x145px

>>2843699
Why would I make effort to analyze them one by one like a Jewish degenerate when they are all the same trash anyway? They are all shitty modern art. Neoclassicism is best, heil Hitler.

>>2844483
Experimentation, exploration, demonstration.

>The artists' book, Throwing Three Balls in the Air to Get a Straight Line (Best of Thirty-Six Attempts) (1973), in the collection of the MoCP, represents Baldessari’s interest in language and games as structures following both mandatory and arbitrary rules. In Throwing Three Balls in the Air to Get a Straight Line (Best of Thirty-Six Attempts), Baldessari attempts to fulfill a simple yet arbitrary goal, following rules in a similar manner to a game as structured by the title of his book. There are thirty-six documented attempts in the book--the typical number of exposures on a roll of 35mm film.

>>2843087
right

>>2843558
wrong

>>2844507
>Experimentation, exploration, demonstration.
Great. Now tell me why these things are valued and why some people create things in their favor. Tell me why Balderssari was interested in language and games as structures, and wanted to fulfill that goal, and why someone documented it.

>>2837042
It's post-modern art you brainlet, and rich people are well aware that most of it is junk, it's how they exchange money without looking shady.

>>2844521
Because these things were concerns of philosophy and society at the time. Just testing the extent of real-life systems and transposing them into aesthetic ones. It has nothing to do with beauty, more to do with revolution.

>>2844550
>Because these things were concerns of philosophy and society at the time.
Philosophy can't be concerned with something, philosophers can. Society is made up of people. You dismissed the question by posing it in light of systems rather than the people behind them. But there are people behind them, and they have a motivation of some kind that you still need to address.

>It has nothing to do with beauty, more to do with revolution.
And what is the appeal of revolution? Why create in favor of it? Why does an artist create (an artist being the craftsman, or the person who appoints other craftsmen)?

>>2843717
Well that photograph is amusing, but should have done more effort though, in my opinion. Like, more balls, or maybe throwing them from an aeroplane, dunno. Not the one you're replying, by the way.

File: Baldessari, Throwing Three Balls in the Air to Get a Straight Line.jpg (103KB, 1200x738px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1200x738px

This is like that /v/ meme, t-b-h

>>2844565
This art was concerned with systems rather than the people behind them. Those artists were the people behind the systems they decided to run as art. The gallery system is what defined taste, so artists sought to explore the idea of systems in art.

>And what is the appeal of revolution? Why create in favor of it?

Not sure where you're leading with this line of questioning. It doesn't lead to beauty though.

I'd have an easier time accepting that 'the ideal' is the primary concern (and defining quality of) art but even that seems inadequate. Beauty is often shorthand for the ideal but saying art is 'about' the ideal accommodates the art that is not about beauty. But keeping in mind the abject and Bataille's idea of base materialism I wouldn't say all art is concerned with the ideal.

>>2844477
Because without pseudointellectuals brainwashing people into liking art, artists will have to work harder to make it innately likable, they will develop their skills and some with exceptional talent will emerge who otherwise would still be making poop scultures and trying too hard to be edgy.

>>2844613
But it would still be a spook so what's the point?

>>2844617
So you can more directly trigger whatever it is you enjoy about art without having to listen to some guy in a turtle neck sweater quibble about how a mould of a vagina penetrating a mould of a penis challenges the establishment.

>>2844666
Not so fast, Satan.

>>2844599
>It doesn't lead to beauty though.
Then tell me what it leads to, because where it goes is extremely relevant to this conversation. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why an artist creates and why we care about art or the things concerned in art in the first place.

You know what my point is though. At the end of the day, the compulsion of any of it is founded on desire and the erection of a thing through art never based on repulsion. Even works created with the intent of repulsing the viewer, works with content that repulsed maybe even the creator, still wanted to represent it through his creation. And that requires something other than a feeling of repulsion.

>>2844687
Or perhaps art is the result of underlying historical processes rather than the desire of individuals. Perhaps art is how the material works through itself, transmuting form to formlessness.

>>2844550
this dude pushed you in a corner right there. an artist made art because he likes it.

>>2844733
People do a lot of things because they like them. It doesn't make them art.

File: 1490757112700.jpg (247KB, 754x884px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 754x884px

>>2844745
how relevant is beauty that a piece of art can last for generations. You are lying to yourself if you think that pic related is out of touch of human sensibility.

Art in a spiritual sense is an ideal of the artist. Such thing can only made possible by an appreciation for beauty

>>2844776
Beauty still isn't necessary for art.

>>2844713
Now you're just going into looney territory. Art is made by people, not processes. It is hung up in galleries, gazed at longingly or with admiration, contemplated with interest and curiosity, worshiped, loved, cherished, discussed, by people, not processes.

Worship is a good word. Reverence is fundamental to art.

File: 92b7b1e293ecd57e11cfe2d439f62710.jpg (64KB, 700x567px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 700x567px

>>2844803
yes you can but it won't last

File: 1495339116536.jpg (180KB, 1280x840px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1280x840px

>>2838176
and on the contrary what does modern art have to offer ? I''ll live in my idealist fantasy thanks

>>2844613
>they are only pretending to like this thing that I don't for social signalling or something
autism

>>2844821
People are the result of processes. Human society is the result of processes. 'hung up in galleries, gazed at longingly or with admiration, contemplated with interest and curiosity, worshiped, loved, cherished, discussed' all describe processes. The creation of art is a process which developed into being the content of art in the period I am describing, the transition from modern to postmodern. The definition of art is always changing. The model we have of art now -- the postmodern contextually-dependent art -- is the most advanced model we have that can be applied holistically to art. It developed in response to the perceived inadequacy of modernist ideas that were reductive; the idea that art deals with a transcendent universal reality -- an ideal, or perhaps 'beauty'.

All that is revered is not art.

>>2844823
Really? The idea of 'art for the mind' introduced by Duchamp has lasted over 100 years. It must be one of the longest-lasting artistic influences in Western art history. Academicism didn't last. Byzantine-style art lasted 1000 years but it was supplanted by the central Italian style.

>>2844869
>People are the result of processes. Human society is the result of processes.
Some processes are the result of people. Philosophy and society are a result of people. These things didn't come first, the people did.

>The model we have of art now -- the postmodern contextually-dependent art -- is the most advanced model we have that can be applied holistically to art. It developed in response to the perceived inadequacy of modernist ideas that were reductive; the idea that art deals with a transcendent universal reality -- an ideal, or perhaps 'beauty'.
It is not contextually-dependent though. This is a misinterpretation. This art still requires a perceiver and a motivation for its creation and fulfillment, which seems to be getting swept tight under the rug. The people in the equation are being suppressed here.

>All that is revered is not art.
I know.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

>>2844918
Logic is something that doesn't require people. A process can logically resolve itself. Art is such a process, continually testing the extent of itself. It seeks to resolve itself. An artist acts on precedent. An artist can involve non-artists to make the work. The artist is superfluous to the art, as is craft, as is form, as is beauty. There is nothing that defines art, because it seeks to escape that which defines it. Craft hides its brushstrokes.

>It is not contextually-dependent though

If the definition of art changes in history then yes it is contextually-dependent. Art contends with its own history. Its history is its theory. Its direction is the refinement of that theory until it isn't necessary.

>>2837933
masters (degree in) fine art

>>2844983
>Logic is something that doesn't require people.
But can you prove that?

>>2845055
Deez nuts

HA

Gotem

>>2837399
>Spectrum
Googled the awards recipients. Not impressed, desu. I like that doodle painting better.

>>2844838
Well I don't know where your interests lie but chances are if you are blanket rejecting all of these
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art# Art_movements_and_artist groups
then you aren't really interested in fine arts at all and should stick to /ic/

File: art.png (478KB, 2234x790px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 2234x790px

Burn all modern art.

File: art.jpg (179KB, 2234x790px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 2234x790px

>>2845174
Updated your pic for the modern times.

>>2844838
>it is extremely improbable that we have suddenly become better and smarter than our predecessors.
No it isn't. A total moron in America is smarter than a 17th century farmer in France.

>>2846448

Spoon fed information =/= smarter.

A total moron knows "facts" that are presented as ideological propoganda. He knows the Earth is round. He can't figure out why.

He knows "There's less difference between races than between individuals in a race" but he doesn't know why. And he doesn't know how to verify how much of a bullshit statement that is.

The 17th century farmer relied on his own intuition and tradition. The 21st century moron relies on media streams that are the epitome of cognitive pollution.

>>2841839
>the whole is to revere the artist, not the piece.

The romantic period wants it's great man and ideas of grandeur back, phillistine. Welcome to the modern world.

>>2837042
delete this goy

>>2837241
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

I think one of the issues is that the art world is sometimes not critical enough and accepts absolute shit as art, and then when everyone starts making easy stuff, it becomes the expected in the art world.

they think abstract art is "an expression of emotion" and don't want to be mean and ridicule emotion, so then people start living an illusion and think it is real art.

at least that's the case in the art school I've been to.

>>2846584
>>2846584
>>2846584
>>2846584